Prev: Anyone knowledgeable about lowest viscosity fluid at roomtemperature and atmospheric pressure?
Next: What is "kibology", anyway? I have looked it up in my dictionary...
From: Marvin the Martian on 7 Apr 2010 11:47
On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 14:51:01 -0500, josephus wrote:

> Marvin the Martian wrote:

>> The e-mails shows how:
>> 1) The "Climate Scientist" conspired and used "peer review" to prevent
>> opposing views that exposed their lies from being published. 2) How
>> they conspired to use "tricks" to "hide the decline". 3) How they
>> fudged the data.
>> 4) The list goes on.
>>
>> Really, flat out telling bald faced lies is really ugly. I can't
>> believe you're so damned stupid as to really believe your own lies. If
>> you can't address the facts, don't act like a mindless idiot who
>> repeats whatever he is told by his masters.
>>
>>
> except the programs dont show that.

< snip excuse for lying and outright fraud >

A bald faced lie. It is pretty stupid of you to try and pass it off as
"dealing with the data". Idiot. How damned stupid ARE you anyway that you
thought someone would be so stupid as to believe you?

Best I can figure, you're an Anti-AGW crusader pretending to be an AGWer
in order to make them appear to be shameless, bald faced liars and
idiots. No one could be so stupid as to lie like you did and still be
able to work a keyboard.

It said right there in the code "fudge factor" and the numbers were
thrown in for NO REASON other than to produce a false increase in the
temperature.

If you're for real, then damn, there is something wrong with you and
people like you. Just wacko.


From: Marvin the Martian on 7 Apr 2010 12:11
On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 11:10:50 -0500, Bill Ward wrote:


> At this point in the process, proponents have proposed a theory that
> says anthropogenic CO2 will raise surface temperatures enough to cause
> severe problems in the future.

Not true, Mr. Ward. The "proponents" make a baseless claim that
anthropogenic CO2 causes global warming. They don't have a theory, a
theory makes useful predictions. It isn't even a hypothesis, as their
"hypothesis" has failed to predict every damn time.

They not only don't have a hypothesis, but when the opposite of their
claims comes to be, they aren't FAZED by that at all!! Indeed, they claim
the recent record cold and snowfall is a result of AGW!! There is NO
FRACKEN WAY to "disprove" their "theory" to them.

So, it is NOT a theory, it is NOT a hypothesis, it is a baseless
unscientific claim.

< snip >

> Proponents contend that some unknown but dangerous amount of additional
> warming will hypothetically come from postulated positive feedbacks
> which cannot as yet be found (measured) in the climate system. They
> seem unusually sure of this. The most common reason is that they
> believe climate models, but don't understand them.

Again, NOT EVEN A HYPOTHESIS. Their claim cannot be tested.

> Skeptics (I, at least) ask to see the data and mechanisms showing the
> existence and operation of these assumed positive feedbacks. As
> proponents, it is up to them to show evidence (measured, not modeled)
> that supports their hypothesis. It's not up to us to provide support for
> their hypothesis, or any other.
>
> The present situation is that proponents insist that the data supporting
> their positive feedback theory is out there somewhere, but none of them
> are willing or able to explain it specifically.

Actually, there have been several attempts using computer models. Each
and every one FAILED to predict. In REAL SCIENCE, at least how we do
science on Mars, this is called a "rejected hypothesis". Not with these
AGWers.

> If proponents can't explain specifically and defend what they propose,
> there is no proposition of which to be skeptical. It loses by default,
> regardless of the blundering, bluster and bluff accompanying it.
>
> That's why I'm encouraging those who want to be proponents to explain
> specifically what they are proposing. Rob and perhaps TomP are, I
> believe, trying to make an honest effort.
>
> Most of the rest of the proponents are simply ignorant trolls, full of
> themselves and little else.

It's the sycophant effect. By mindlessly parroting the claims of the
"scientist", they hope to gain respect from the respected glory.

From: Marvin the Martian on 7 Apr 2010 12:37
On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 23:58:14 -0700, Rob Dekker wrote:

> "Marvin the Martian" <marvin(a)ontomars.org> wrote in message
> news:v_6dneP6Y6_KGifWnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>> On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 17:09:32 -0700, Rob Dekker wrote:
>>
>>> "Marvin the Martian" <marvin(a)ontomars.org> wrote in message
>>
>>
>> > > Actually, we know from the CRU e-mails that peer review in "climate
>> > > science" was outright intentional fraud committed by many
>> > > conspirators.
>
>> < Martian snipped out Dekker's questions to provide evidence for any of
>> these allegations, and then claims : >
>
>> Mr. Dekker's claim that he is utterly ignorant of recent events, much
>> less science.
>
> Mr. Martian : Your inability to back up your own empty allegations with
> ANY facts

1) http://www.eastangliaemails.com/index.php
These are the e-mails and they specifically relate to the question at
hand.

2) Here is the code that shows the "fudge factor" in the valadj (value
adjust, obviously)

yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]

valadj=
[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6]
*0.75 ; fudge factor

End Quote. That is out right fraud.

3) While not directly related, there is the work done by Svensmark and
others who provided a theory that explains much of climate change, and
CO2 of any kind was not invoked.

4) Simple chemistry and AGW are in conflict, in that Chemistry predicts
that warming will cause more CO2 in the atmosphere. I tend to believe
Chemistry, since it produces useful predictions and AGW "science"
predicts nothing.

> proves my point that you are are simply echoing beliefs and
> spin that the denial industry feeds you.
>
> I hope they pay you well for acting as a mindless parrot.

Sadly, I've not gotten so much as a free lump of coal from the big fossil
fuel companies. But then, they never offered and I've never asked. :-D
Seems you lied about the paid part.

> Rob

From: Bill Ward on 7 Apr 2010 13:08
On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 11:11:53 -0500, Marvin the Martian wrote:

> On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 11:10:50 -0500, Bill Ward wrote:
>
>
>> At this point in the process, proponents have proposed a theory that
>> says anthropogenic CO2 will raise surface temperatures enough to cause
>> severe problems in the future.
>
> Not true, Mr. Ward. The "proponents" make a baseless claim that
> anthropogenic CO2 causes global warming. They don't have a theory, a
> theory makes useful predictions. It isn't even a hypothesis, as their
> "hypothesis" has failed to predict every damn time.
>
> They not only don't have a hypothesis, but when the opposite of their
> claims comes to be, they aren't FAZED by that at all!! Indeed, they
> claim the recent record cold and snowfall is a result of AGW!! There is
> NO FRACKEN WAY to "disprove" their "theory" to them.
>
> So, it is NOT a theory, it is NOT a hypothesis, it is a baseless
> unscientific claim.
>
> < snip >
>
>> Proponents contend that some unknown but dangerous amount of additional
>> warming will hypothetically come from postulated positive feedbacks
>> which cannot as yet be found (measured) in the climate system. They
>> seem unusually sure of this. The most common reason is that they
>> believe climate models, but don't understand them.
>
> Again, NOT EVEN A HYPOTHESIS. Their claim cannot be tested.
>
>> Skeptics (I, at least) ask to see the data and mechanisms showing the
>> existence and operation of these assumed positive feedbacks. As
>> proponents, it is up to them to show evidence (measured, not modeled)
>> that supports their hypothesis. It's not up to us to provide support
>> for their hypothesis, or any other.
>>
>> The present situation is that proponents insist that the data
>> supporting their positive feedback theory is out there somewhere, but
>> none of them are willing or able to explain it specifically.
>
> Actually, there have been several attempts using computer models. Each
> and every one FAILED to predict. In REAL SCIENCE, at least how we do
> science on Mars, this is called a "rejected hypothesis". Not with these
> AGWers.
>
>> If proponents can't explain specifically and defend what they propose,
>> there is no proposition of which to be skeptical. It loses by default,
>> regardless of the blundering, bluster and bluff accompanying it.
>>
>> That's why I'm encouraging those who want to be proponents to explain
>> specifically what they are proposing. Rob and perhaps TomP are, I
>> believe, trying to make an honest effort.
>>
>> Most of the rest of the proponents are simply ignorant trolls, full of
>> themselves and little else.
>
> It's the sycophant effect. By mindlessly parroting the claims of the
> "scientist", they hope to gain respect from the respected glory.

Wow! You're even grouchier than I am. Congratulations. ;-)


From: spudnik on 7 Apr 2010 14:07

> > virtually all of "global" warming -- strictly a misnomer, or
an oxymoron, or a nonsequiter, "from the beginning," and
as embodied in computerized simulacra ("GCMs" e.g.), and
in entirely selective reporting in the Liberal Media (owned
by consWervative) ... so,
you believe that all glaciers or receding, or even a majority of them?

> Please kill your your text-generator program, and summarize what your point is.

thus:
on the other hand, it seems that
MPC# nodified his postings, for the worse,
by repeating teh exact same drivel, over-and-over,
as his "reply" to any change in teh argument; oh, well!

thus:
sorry, but i eschew much of the nettiqurtte ideals,
exceroting the absolute minimum for *some* evocation
of the replied-to stuff. the key is
to actually include referenets im *my* reply, instead
of treating exactly as a conversation. OK, so, may be
I spend too much time editing the ****.

--Light: A History!
http://wlym.com
http://21stcenturysciencetech.com
http://white-smoke.wetpaint.com
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Prev: Anyone knowledgeable about lowest viscosity fluid at roomtemperature and atmospheric pressure?
Next: What is "kibology", anyway? I have looked it up in my dictionary...